Talk:Heat exhaustion

Stub?

Is this a stub? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.179.153.98 (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Spring 2024 OSH Courses Projects

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xheckma0 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by UCIHGrad18 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Foundations II

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 June 2024 and 17 August 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FionaMai, Selowe, A.MahmoudiWIKI, Jarynmiguel (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lissethliu, Ivy.w.liang, ISELALOPEZ, Qingyl.

— Assignment last updated by Health Economics and Policy (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Goals for our article

Discuss more differences between heat exhaustion, syncope, stroke, and cramps

Discuss how medications might impact heat exhaustion

Discuss more on how heat exhaustion might impact different populations

Discuss more on prognosis Selowe (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Foundations II 2024 Peer Review

1. Yes. Everything in the article is relevant to the topic, and there is nothing distracting or tangential. Overall, the article is neutral and objective. The citations do work and are appropriate. However, they could have incorporated more systemic reviews and meta-analyses. There are some sentences at the end of paragraphs that lack citations, giving the impression that there is no supporting evidence. The information was conveyed in a clear and concise manner. I particularly liked the Comparison with other heat-related illnesses, Physiology, and Treatment sections. I did not find any grammatical errors. The article was vell organized starting by explaining what is heat exhaustion

2. Yes. Looking at the group's plan, they wanted to (1) expand on the differences between heat exhaustion, syncope, stroke and cramps, (2) discuss the effects of medications on body regulation, and (3) discuss the effects of heat exhaustion on different populations. This team did a great job of clarifying the distinction between heat exhaustion and other heat illnesses, such as heat stroke, under the Signs and Symptoms section. The writing effectively conveyed these differences concisely. They did a good job of expanding the Medication Impact section. One thing I would change is adding more systemic review/meta-analysis sources as citations. I felt this section could have also been broken down into bullet points, but that's a minor detail, and it is well-written as is. They did expand the Special Populations section with pediatrics and pregnancy sub-headings. I did notice some biased wording, such as the last sentence in the Pediatrics section ("...the best way to combat and prevent heat exhaustion in children..."). I think that sentence could be restructured. Again, that is more of a minor detail, and the team all-in-all did a great job and achieved all their goals.

3A. The article does show a relatively neutral point of view. They did not draw conclusions or try to convince the reader to accept any particular point of view. In the Medications section, when a drug did not have a clear mechanism of action, they did a great job in stating the ambiguity and did not hypothesize or cite any takes from non-secondary sources. I appreciate that the Causes section discussed the role that climate change has on heat exhaustion incidence. In my opinion, the team could have also expanded on the regions of the world most impacted by climate change (i.e., "hot spots" for high-risk heat waves). ISELALOPEZ (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

1. Yes, the article has a great introduction specifying the disease, in this case, heat exhaustion. The content is very brief, well explained, and does not contain much unnecessary detail; everything is summarized very clearly. I like the bullet points addressing the signs and symptoms, risk factors, etc. I appreciate how they introduced the populations that can be affected by heat exhaustion, including children, older adults, and individuals with co-morbidities. I like the organization because it is easy to read and follow all the material. All references are useful in backing up the information described, and I like the sections for pediatrics and pregnancy.
2. The group really did a great job summarizing all the information and pointing out the most relevant things for each section, this includes expanding on heat exhaustion impact on different population and how can medication impact this. I would add a little more systematic and meta-analysis review on this article.
3. The article content is very neutral and tries to provide the reader with information in an accessible manner. It doesn't have many medical terms, and if it does, they are explained clearly.

Lissethliu (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Question 1. Person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D each answer this question individually: Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? [explain]

The edits improved the article as they enhance clarity by providing detailed information. Added content improved the article's comprehensiveness. Article is very thorough and relevant with the new sections. Content is well-researched and informative.

Question 2. Person A, Person B, Person C, and Person D each answer this question individually: Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? [explain]

Yes, the article more informative and easier to read. The added sections and references provide a solid foundation for understanding heat exhaustion.

Question 3. Does the article meet Wikipedia guidelines?

The draft submission reflects a neutral point of view. The article provides a balanced presentation of facts without bias, citing credible sources. It avoids promoting any particular viewpoint or product, aligning with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The article has a neutral tone by presenting information based on scientific evidence. Each section is referenced with credible sources to ensure the content is reliable and unbiased. Ivy.w.liang (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2024 (UTC)